What happened to Bipartisanship and Liberal Openness?

[CaptJasHook]

A couple of old saws:

You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

We, as a liberal community should be supportive of a big tent approach to the country. It is time to lay aside some of the fear we have that all conservatives and all Corporatists are out to screw us. Both sides need to work together.

I wonder about the demand from many DUers for purity of thought amongst ourselves and amongst the administration.

Sounds like Conservative fear-mongering to me.

[Mari333]

1. I prefer Democrats with spines. nt

[CaptJasHook]

3. Define Spine.

I assume you mean political courage. If so, how is opening is opening up the party to a greater number of voices cowardice? How is looking to outside voices and experience and/or expertise lacking a spine?

[Mari333]

10. spine would be

to see Dems hold war criminals accountable , to not see them waver on what they campaigned on, to see them adhere to the Constitution and Bill of Rights and the Geneva Conventions and call out anyone who is not doing so. there is bipartisanship, and there is also cowardice.

[CaptJasHook]

12. I sense your frustration.

But my perception is that things are moving along those lines. The pace IS frustrating but their are legal disagreements as to whether or not Cheney, et al. are prosecutable under the current law. It takes time to build any case. I already see steps toward prosecution.

Their are also political issues to consider. I believe this economic mess was left for a reason. It is a delaying tactic. There is only so much political will the majority of this nation has. As a survivor of the Clinton witch trials, the last thing I want to see as a LIberal is for us to adopt the Rights self-righteous crusade mentality.

[Fumesucker]

2. You catch even more flies with shit..

Which is what "bipartisanship" is right at the moment.

Equine excrement.

Maybe if the political right was something approaching sane bipartisanship would be a good idea.

The GOP is so far beyond sane that the light from sane won't reach them for ten billion years.

[CaptJasHook]

4. Where has Obama caved to the GOP?

Can you guess what his strategy is? Or are you content just to be shut out 28% of America? That is one in four or approximately 75 million of your neighbors. When did that become okay for the Liberal conscious?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. We had 8 years of bi-partisanship. aka caving and keeping our powder dry.

How'd that work out?

"A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." Thomas Paine

[CaptJasHook]

7. How did it work out? Are you serious?

We have a Democratically controlled Congressional and Executive branch with an opportunity to retake the Judicial. The war in Iraq is ebbing, Global environmental issues are being addressed, the march to a Fascist America has been halted.

Give me a break.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. Afghanistan. Covering up torture. Priniting money. Military tribunals.

Give me a break.

[CaptJasHook]

14. You would find vigorous disagreement on many of those issues.

But heightening that disagreement to anger and rebellion?

Addressing Al Qeada in Afghanistan was a major rallying cry amongst DUers 24 months ago. We decried Bush's obsession with Iraq when the real threat was in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan. So now you want to add Afghanistan on your list of never satisfied complaints.

How do you reconcile the release of the Torture memos with covering up torture?

The printing money part, I am in full agreement with, I don't know enough about economics, and so I have to have some faith in Obama.

The military tribunals are legal and they have been renewed with greater rights given to the defense. I too would be scared of military tribunals, but they are completely Constitutional and are set up to deal with crimes committed under the guise of war or Jihad.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. Answers.

Rebellion? In the complacent USA?

Obama is sending 28,000 more troops to a lost war for PR. Those troops aren't going "win" anything and, if anything, they'll add to Al Queda's recruiting drive.

Obama was forced, by the outcry from the ACLU, HRC, and other human rights groups to turn over the memos. How about his pre-pardon of the CIA thugs who actually did the torturing?

Obama himself railed against the tribunals when it was politically expedient to do so. Now, it's time for the ever popular flip-flop.

[CaptJasHook]

22. You call it a flip flop, I call it Political wisdom.

Those same groups, the ACLU, HRC, etc. were crying out during the last administration as well. Now they have their way. Once the memos make the light of day, Obama et.al can begin the process of summoning the will to prevent (for some time at least) the abuses from happening again and, hopefully, create some evidence for the prosecution. The pre-pardon is to help gather evidence, standard legal maneuver.

I will gladly eat my hat in disgust in 3 years if none of these bastards having legal reprisals and/or prosecutions.

The Afghanistan question. I don't know. Currently their is a collective will and desire to continue in Afghanistan. Maybe this is a cynical move on Obama's part, maybe the pressure is having some effect on Pakistani politics. Whatever it is, I am do not sympathize with interventionists or war-mongers. It seems that war is politics. I am just happy that we are pulling from Iraq. I fully expect and hope that America is punished for its invasion of the Middle East.

[bertman]

59. Tierra_y_Libertad, your definition of bi-partisanship is inaccurate. Bi-partisanship occurs

when both parties work together. The previous 8 years were an example of six years when there was total, unequivocal partisanship, then came two years of a slim Democratic majority with an uncompromising and ruthless Republican executive branch and an obstructionist Republican barely-a-minority party.

That is not even close to bi-partisanship.

I do understand that you are equating the Democrats' inability to take advantage of having the majority party status with caving and "keeping our powder dry" and I agree with both of those characterizations; however, it was not due to bipartisanship, but co-opted leadership and political cowardice, IMHO.

[patrice]

6. You NEED two DIFFERENT things to have bi- anything. And you NEED OPENNESS to have two different

anything.

[CaptJasHook]

8. I am not certain about your point. n/t

[Mari333]

11. I think a good analogy would be

imagine a woman who is married to a man who beats her up every day. every day he pummels her mercilessly.
finally, the woman decides she wants it to stop. so she goes to a counselor who tells her
"just be nice to him and maybe he will stop"
so she becomes nice to him and keeps hoping that will work.
thats called being a doormat.

[CaptJasHook]

15. That is also called a Strawman argument.

The American people were being pummeled. We pummeled back, Obama and a Democratic Congress were elected.

I don't see any doormats in the last election cycle. Might I suggest that your arguments stem from anger and deep seated frustration.

I wish I could help you feel that the worst is over, we have a little more to go, but to be patient.

[hfojvt]

50. it would be more like a bad analogy

IF it is bad. Depends on what you think the pummelling is.

We still have

the war in Iraq
the war in Afghanistan
banks being bailed out, but not creditors or home-owners
the war on drugs
the prison industrial complex
for-profit health care

and no sign of any of that ending in the near future

Republicans are certainly not working to end any of that. They are still bleating about tax cuts (and getting them - AMT 'relief' for households with income up to $500,000 was included in the stimulus bill)

[patrice]

13. I don't see fundamental differences between the parties as long as Campaign Finance is

what it is and without Voting reform (i.e. instant run-off voting on paper ballots counted in public).

I'm TIRED of waiting.

[CaptJasHook]

18. I hear you, but be pragmatic.

The struggle is eternal, because it is a struggle with the fundamental way with which humanity has to engage each other and our reality.

I believe that the largest Conservative movements in history arise from impatience, pride and anger. So we must strive to do what is right and not give in to those temptations.

[patrice]

38. I am learning this every day in very concrete ways right now.

I understand the necessity of your point; I just don't want to loose the things that are fuel to my soul.

[CaptJasHook]

43. And I assure you, those same things fuel mine.

If they didn't, I would have left this country in '94. I have a lot of faith in my Liberal position, but every belief system is challenged. I am joyful that America is beginning to come to its senses and abandon the fear driven, ego-centric, violent policies of the Conservative ideology.

[spanone]

16. you can certainly catch more flies than you can republic votes.

[CaptJasHook]

19. Well, self described Republicans have dropped in numbers.

And we took the moderate vote. So how about that?

[Mari333]

20. to keep the former republicans happy doesnt mean abandoning principles

and with the FISA bill and telecommunications corporate immunity, the refusal to release torture photos, the surge in afghanistan, the iffy withdrawal in Iraq that will leave troops on the ground indefinetely, the continued use of mercenaries in both places, the backtracking on dadt, I do see principles being abandoned to appease republicans.
however, it will lose them votes from a large base of dems if they continue.
they cant have it both ways.

[CaptJasHook]

24. Only if Liberals start acting like Conservatives.

You make my point. Liberals are beginning to act like Republicans, with their "You're either with us or against us" mentality.

The back lash is going to be stronger against liberals than against Republicans, because we will be seen as extremists. And, to be quite frank, nobody is scared of the stereotypical Liberal. The gun-toting pro-violence Conservative on the other hand.... Fear is a powerful, powerful weapon.

[Mari333]

26. so we abandon the Constitution and the Bill of Rights

and the Geneva Convention to keep gun toting conservatives happy? not me.

[CaptJasHook]

27. You are putting words in my mouth

Give the process time to work.

We need to take the power away from the Conservative bullies and convince the Moderates that our position IS Constitutional. You fail to give Cheney, Rove and the other bastards credit for cleverness in covering their tracks. It is going to take time to prosecute this one. We won't be able to do that if the Congress and the Admin keeps switching because Liberals became the ass-hats in the country and alienated everyone with their holier than though attitude.

[Individualist]

21. Damn the DLC!

[CaptJasHook]

23. DLC?

[Lasher]

25. Obama tried that with the stimulus bill.

And yet not a single House Republican voted for it. Only three Republicans voted for it in the Senate.

[BeFree]

28. Good Job, Cap

Herding cats is a laborious effort, eh?

Hell, in three years if we haven't got some real change, I'll eat your hat.
In the meantime'..... here kitty, kitty.

[CaptJasHook]

32. Thanks Grandpa.

Here's hoping we are all around in 3 years!

[BeFree]

40. No problem

Grasshopper!

[centristgrandpa]

29. to your question...

The political relics' of yesteryears, our "public servants" have a duty to up hold their traditional crap, both parity parties included. They are so deeply rooted with lobbyist money, it seems quite clear today that change is hard to instill when thems have all the power. The three major changes needed have been brushed aside, (foreclosure reform, bankruptcy and single-payer HC). At every turn, consumers have lost...change is an overstatement...too bad

[CaptJasHook]

30. The game isn't over yet.

(Pardon the similarity to the Hannity metaphor)

The tree of Liberty is rotting from corruption. It takes time and concerted effort for the Liberal arborist to heal.

[centristgrandpa]

35. metaphors aside...

Could not agree more, time is hopefully on our grandchildren side, hopefully is an understatement..

[DJ13]

31. Bipartisanship implies both sides get something in return

So far all I see is a Dem Congress and President that are giving in on a regular basis to the GOP.

"Oh, we cant take a vote on that, the GOP might filibuster!" is just a cowardly excuse for not wanting to pass truly liberal legislation, and we see that on a regular basis.

[CaptJasHook]

34. You are choosing to ignore the progress.

As long as you insist on going straight from point A to point B with no effort or time, then you will always be pissed off.

[DJ13]

36. What "progress"?

Seriously, has there been even a single bone from Congress or Obama towards the left?

How long should we wait for the sad group of Democrats we elected to actually step up and work towards real progressive legislation without fear of GOP (or corporate) reprisals?

They are so weak they couldnt even get a temporary mortgage cram down amendment passed.

That should have been one of the easiest votes any of them could make.

[CaptJasHook]

46. Do you bother to look at the news or are you more content to whine?

http://wizbangblog.com/content/2009/03/03/the-obama-report-card.php

http://environment.about.com/od/environmentallawpolicy/a/obama-first-100-days.htm

http://www.aauw.org/advocacy/issue_advocacy/upload/obamaFirst100.pdf

http://www.npr.org/news/specials/2009/benchmarks/

http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/progress-report.htm

This is off the first google.

Okay, surprise, Obama is not the new Messiah. You might have to wait a while for the second coming of Christ.

Dude, chill out.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our second quarter 2009 fund drive.
Donate and you'll be automatically entered into our daily contest.
New prizes daily!



No purchase or donation necessary. Void where prohibited. Click here for more information.

[Overseas]

37. Republicans have not been bipartisan for years now.

They only talk bipartisanship when they are in the minority. When they dominated, they were not bipartisan. They filibustered Democratic legislation hundreds of times.

They only talk bipartisan when they want to weaken Democratic legislation.

So I am glad President Obama is also using the term strategically. Talking bipartisan as they have been and then demonstrating how deep the Republicans' devotion to that spirit goes-- he bends to incorporate some Republican ideas like tax-cuts (thankfully favoring the middle-class instead of GOP-preferred tax-cutting for the already wealthy) -- and Republicans vote ZERO for his policies that incorporated some of their dumb ideas.

So glad our president is showing how hollow their talk about bipartisanship really is.

FURTHERMORE

Republicans have long pretended they are "tough on defense" and "fiscally conservative" when in fact, Republican presidents have raised our deficits and Democrats have curbed them. When Republicans perpetrated the ugly war of choice on Iraq that endangered our national security and perpetrated torture which further endangered us and resulted in hundreds of photos and hours of video tape that our friends and enemies around the globe have already seen.

Those GOP lies "fiscally conservative" and "strong on defense" have been exposed. We know, from the Bush Depression, that they are completely false now. Republicans long accused the Democrats of being "tax and spend" liberals. Well Republicans have run "tax-cut and spend" administrations that have preferred to shovel debt onto future administrations.

Yes, I'm old enough to have seen actual bipartisanship. It wasn't GOP blowhards trashing the president every chance they got, getting him to bend and then voting as a block against the compromise legislation. It was actual Republican legislators voting with the Democratic party on particular legislation. And vice versa. It wasn't just talk. It wasn't just posturing or a cheap political stunt.

But the GOP has seized upon the block voting in recent years to look tough. I think they figured that they'd scared the country with the massive war on terror (and left bin Laden at large) so if they acted tough the public would think they were The Strong Party and vote for them. And if they got Democrats to compromise they could smear them as wusses. And retain their title as the Strong Serious Party. That was part of the appeal of their dissing Kerry as a flip flopper. (They also frequently use highly-publicized smearing to deflect attention from their own flaws, like the abundance of hypocrites in the GOP.)

The GOP may also be using their block voting, "Party of No" style to create the impression that they are more powerful than they really are. And with our mass media consolidated into conservative hands over the past couple of decades (http://www.corporations.org/media/) they can do that quite well. With only about 1/4 of the public supporting their positions, they can sure get a lot of air time !

[CaptJasHook]

41. Wow, excellent post. My thoughts exactly

We Liberals need to have confidence in our message. If we stay steady and rational, without alienating others, they will see the compassion and logic in our positions.

Thank you, Overseas, you have made my morning. I was beginning to feel DU was merely the anger zone.

[Overseas]

52. Thank you. I am glad President Obama showed GOP bipartisanship to be the fraud that it is.

Devotees of the GOP use language as a weapon and don't trouble themselves with accuracy or sincerity.

I'm glad many more people see that and agree, and have been leaving the GOP.

So I for one keep hoping that Democratic legislators realize they no longer need Blue Dog compromises and should do what they know works better than tax cuts and bailouts for a sick financial system. We need larger stimulus public works programs (which are much needed to address the deferred maintenance we've incurred through misguided "heck of a job" privatization of too many essential services) and intensive re-regulation of the financial sector. And a public option to move health care in the USA from being a "free market" (i.e. money dominated) privilege, to being a basic human right.

But alas, the Blue Dogs know that. They also know that we still don't have public financing of political campaigns, and rely on those large corporate donations and bundles.

And now Newt Gingrich has jumped back into the fray to save the GOP. He sees language primarily as a weapon and is back on the air regularly, lying very confidently, testing out which arguments will stick for the GOP's next political campaigns. And Frank Luntz keeps polling, trolling for magic language to sweep people backward into the deficit-building, national-security destroying GOP. And the GOP has teams of rich right wing fanatics to help them make their case.

For those who missed it, one of Newty's big claims to fame was his 1996 GoPac memo on "Language: A Key Mechanism of Control": http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4443.htm

[anonymous171]

39. Big tent only works for temporary coalitions. nt

[CaptJasHook]

44. Maybe, but who owns the tent now?

[omega minimo]

42. "the fear we have that all conservatives and all Corporatists are out to screw us"

:rofl: that's a good one.



:eyes: why are you challenging "our fear" rather than the actions of "conservatives and all Corporatists." What are they bringing to your big tent table?

[CaptJasHook]

45. My question is this. How many actual corporatists or Conservatives do you know?

Have you ever sat down and talked to them on a human level? They will attempt to show you that their actions are in your own best interests. More often than not, they well honestly believe their actions are justified and in the country's best interest. They don't see themselves as being "out to screw you".

Unfortunately for them, we are right and they are wrong. But that doesn't mean that they have malicious intent.

Remember that Corporations are merely a technology, a tool. As a tool, they have done much to employ and feed a large population. Unless you can think of an alternative method (besides a massive drop in population), I suggest you try and work with the tools you are given.

[Marr]

47. They *are* out to screw you.

I've known plenty of self-described Conservatives; mostly proponents of globalism and free trade. I used to do business with guys who coordinated deals between Chinese manufacturers and American marketing groups, and for American manufacturers looking to outsource their labor. They most certainly are out to screw you.

Yes, they tell themselves they're doing the "right thing", but you see-- they think the "right thing" is culling the herd, and letting the weak die off. If you aren't clever enough or well-connected enough to do what they do, then you should live like the laboring beast you are. That's their idea of "right".

They say these things in much more flowery ways than I just put it-- but that is the sentiment. A person can be an outright bastard *and* convinced they're doing what's right. In fact, I suspect they almost always are.

[CaptJasHook]

54. You are still jumping to an irrational conclusion.

If someone is trying to make a profit of you, in any economic system, you can choose a different product, create your own or choose not to purchase at all. It is your choice, that is why any Capitalist will tell you that Capitalism (as opposed to Corporatism) offers the greatest amount of financial liberty. You want to see Capitalism in action, just go down to your local farmer's market.

Corporatism, on the other hand is not designed to address the needs of the individual consumer. It is designed to provide the least costly product at the highest possible profit. It is designed to create wealth. It does so on the, highly accurate, observation that you can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time. It is a cynical view of life that has created monstrous amounts of wealth. It is also works, has worked, and always will work.

However, I don't take their actions personally. Why should I? They aren't attacking me personally. In fact, if I bought into their game and worked for them or purchased from them, then they would do as much as they could to keep me addicted to their product/lifestyle. They would treat me as a valued customer/employee, but I would be a fool to take that personally as well. It isn't about feelings, it is about business.

Whether we like it or not business (as opposed to warfare in the olden days) is what provides us with the freedom to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. With that comes our responsibility to safeguard ourselves from the Corporate wolves by being clever and maintaining our political Will to regulate, adjudicate and educate. Nothing personal to them, of course.

[omega minimo]

56. the only people you have not countered with insults are the ones on campaign finance reforrm

Otherwise, you are dismissive and personal in your replies, telling people they aren't capable of forming an opinion..... whereas a read of the thread before posting made it appear that you are wearing rose colored glasses and indulge in wishful thinking.

You won't acknowledge all the damage that's been done and how alienating the behavior of those you want to include has been....



from your posts in the thread:

The pace IS frustrating but their are legal disagreements as to whether or not Cheney, et al. are prosecutable under the current law.



We have a Democratically controlled Congressional and Executive branch with an opportunity to retake the Judicial. The war in Iraq is ebbing, Global environmental issues are being addressed, the march to a Fascist America has been halted. Give me a break.



Once the memos make the light of day, Obama et.al can begin the process of summoning the will to prevent (for some time at least) the abuses from happening again and, hopefully, create some evidence for the prosecution. The pre-pardon is to help gather evidence, standard legal maneuver.



You make my point. Liberals are beginning to act like Republicans, with their "You're either with us or against us" mentality.

The back lash is going to be stronger against liberals than against Republicans, because we will be seen as extremists. And, to be quite frank, nobody is scared of the stereotypical Liberal. The gun-toting pro-violence Conservative on the other hand.... Fear is a powerful, powerful weapon.



We need to take the power away from the Conservative bullies and convince the Moderates that our position IS Constitutional. You fail to give Cheney, Rove and the other bastards credit for cleverness in covering their tracks. It is going to take time to prosecute this one. We won't be able to do that if the Congress and the Admin keeps switching because Liberals became the ass-hats in the country and alienated everyone with their holier than though attitude.

[CaptJasHook]

57. Not true. I consistently on this thread acknowledged peoples frustration.

As for dismissive, Pot calling Kettle black.

Do you have a point?

[omega minimo]

60. Yes

You just proved my point with your belligerent IGNORE of the point in the post you are pretending isn't there.




FAIL.

[CaptJasHook]

64. Who is being beligerent? You are making the accusations.

Perhaps you need to be clearer on what "point" you wish addressed.

[omega minimo]

65. I read the thread before replying and posted your quotes which make your premise questionable

My points have been made.

You have bypassed them.

Feel free to "address" someone else.

[Marr]

61. You're separating capitalism from corporatism, but then just re-stating

what capitalism is.

Strictly speaking, "Corporatism" doesn't have anything to do with what we're talking about here at all. It's just a way of separating power.

What you're describing is a central tenet of capitalism; keep the costs low and the profits high. Or in the situations I alluded to, "socialize the costs, privatize the profit". Whether you feel personally offended or not is immaterial.

I don't know anyone who is arguing against capitalism itself, so I'm not sure where you got that. Well-regulated capitalism is a fine, sustainable system. But we all have every right to demand regulation. It's our society that makes these businesses possible, not vice-versa, as you suggest.

[omega minimo]

51. Right, they are tools, treated as "persons," controlling elections with $$ = "free speech." Fix that

There's your "bipartisanship" and way to bring in all the "moderates" you like.

[CaptJasHook]

62. Firstly, Corporations are made up of people making decisions according to law.

That is what we need to address. Corporations are not people, but their boards, mangers, employees and consumers are. You change Corporations by regulation and adjudication. You create regulation and adjudication by changing law. You change law by electing law-makers, you elect law makers by convincing people and building coalitions.

I am no moderate, but I recognize that any success the left wishes to achieve is on the goodwill and convincing of the moderates. For we as liberals to write off the Right is sad, but necessary. For us to write off the Centrists is plain political suicide. Ask the Right on that one.

[CBR]

49. My parents are conservatives.... you know what they do --

go to work, watch baseball, tend to their garden, bug their children, travel, watch American Idol and don't spend a lot of time demonizing people.

[omega minimo]

53. the OP seems confused about whether he's talking about them in general or individuals

"all conservatives and all Corporatists" have essentially destroyed the nation over the past 30 years.

Your very nice folks may or may not have enabled that.

They may also be actual conservatives, which is different than neo-cons or Dittoheads (if they listen to the broadcast hatemongers, rest assured that they do in fact demonize people, cuz that's all those guys do).



The definitions of moderate, conservative, centrist, left, etc. are fuzzy on DU and in this thread.

[CaptJasHook]

55. I am not confused at all. It is a difficult conversation.

We all seem to want to objectify people into little catagories.

I insist that we all have Liberal, Centrist and Conservative values that we flex dependent on the circumstance. In addition, that the politics of this nation are consistent with the politics of the individual, ie. flexible to the circumstance.

[omega minimo]

58. Your terms are not clear as you make clear in your reply. You want the flexibility but have hung

your premise on a notion of who these "moderates" and "conservatives" and supposedly "holier that thou liberals" are.

I asked you a question and you replied with "my question is."


So you have avoided answering why, at this point, liberals should want to kowtow to the destructive political forces that brought us here.





Ah yes that "point" you conveniently missed:

"You won't acknowledge all the damage that's been done and how alienating the behavior of those you want to include has been...."

Might need a new pair of rose colored glasses. :spray:

[CaptJasHook]

67. I am not sure why you choose to be obtuse and create clever logisms.

Instead of progressing an argument you are insisting on looking for minutia that further confuse my post.

You are arguing in bad faith instead of addressing the original post.

For example, I have on several occasions in this post recognized posters frustrations and anger, and even recognized my own.

I have in several places acknowledged the damage done by the previous Conservative movement. you seem to choose to ignore this.

If you read my posts you will see I have answered your questions. To put it clearly:

We as Liberals need to kowtow to Centrists to prevent the destructive political forces from regaining power.

Fuck your rose colored glasses, I see fine. Everyone I know complains that I am too much of a pragmatist. It's the other idealogues around DU that worry me.

[Kaleva]

48. people like to create monsters

We can justify alot of our actions if the enemy is Satan, a Saddam with WMDs, a evil neo-con or whatever.

[DireStrike]

63. The other side is not interested in working together

They will take your olive branch and beat you over the head with it.

[CaptJasHook]

68. I offer no olive branch.

I am merely asserting that we have to out maneuver them by continuing to hold the Centrists. Which means concessions and long term thinking, not short term gains.

[JackDragna]

66. The other side isn't interested in returning the favor.

To the Republicans, it's all about keeping power. They have no interest in differing opinions when they run the show. One of the best examples of this I can remember is the organization comprised by each state's governor. When most of the states in the late 80's/early 90's had Democratic governors, the Republicans complained about not being given a platform. When the Republicans swept to power during the Republican Revolution, they completely shut out the Democratic governors from all meetings, even though the Dems had been accepting of the "minority" viewpoint earlier.

It's this simple: we've been called traitors, socialists and communists for far too long. We are demonized as being godless and corrupt. I am tired of playing nice with these people. It's time to stop pretending the Republicans are just people who are generally good and are working to help the country. They're not.

[CaptJasHook]

69. If we wish to keep them out of power, then we need to keep marginalizing them.

They were able to make their case to the American public by playing to the Centrists on issues of defense, crime and fiscal responsiblility. We need to keep the Centrists in our tent. I do not see how Obama's actions have conceded anything to the right. The center, yes, the Right, no.

[JackDragna]

70. It's not so much about an individual politician..

..rather, it's about the general strategy of being "bipartisanship." It fails. There's very few people on the right who are centrist and have any real clout anymore. The party has been co-opted by win-at-all-costs snake oil salesmen.

[readmoreoften]

71. Funny and I was thinking "what happened to the Democratic party?"

Many of us can't even figure out what the party's definition of its own constituency and its own goals are beyond "reaching across the aisle" to "the others."

[Bluebear]

72. +1

[lib2DaBone]

73. I had to pinch myself.. I thought I was reading Free Republic...

We are not talking "purity of thought".. ( as if you measure such an abstact concept as that). Sounds Evangelical to me....Like a Sarah Palinism or a Dick Chenyism...

We are talking realtiy. The reality of billions spent every day on a war.. while kids go hungry in the United States and 50 million Americans lack health care.

An Economy foundering on the rocks... while jobs are shipped to China.

Socialize the loses and privatize the profits.

[Mythsaje]

74. Okay... I'll engage...

"...Fear of conservatives and corporatists?" "Both sides need to work together?"

Going with that line of reasoning, maybe if there are burglars preying on our neighborhoods we should consider just moving our stuff outside so they don't have to work so hard, eh?

You DO understand that corporatists and populists are wildly divergent philosophies, right? Do you think they're coming around to OUR way of thinking, or does "compromise" in this context mean we should edge ever closer to their viewpoint? After the past twenty something years, when "centrism" dragged us farther to the right than we ever wanted, then the neocons sank their claws into us and played havoc with everything we hold dear, the last thing we want is to "compromise" with people who NEVER themselves compromise. Like my ex used to say "When I say compromise, I mean we'll do it my way."

Do you see the banks and credit card companies instituting their OWN interest rate cap, or are they just going to keep going for broke until someone else puts a stop to it?

Do you see the Insurance Industry suddenly deciding, "hey, we think we'll just pay off these claims and stop trying to weasel out of them. We're going to start ignoring "pre-existing conditions" and just treat people. We're going to let doctors and patients decide their best course of treatment and just pay the bills like we said we would."

Do you think the oil companies are just going to say "hey, we're going to take a large portion of those obscene profits from the last few years and try to reinvest it in renewable energy research?"

Do you think those large corporations that outsourced all their manufacturing divisions are going to suddenly say, "oh, we're sorry. It was wrong of us and we'll start opening up factories and employing people again."

Do you think all those large retailers who make new hires watch videos describing the evils of unionization are going to say "oh, hey, we were wrong. What WERE we thinking?"

Probably not.

So, then, where does that leave us?


It's interesting to note that it's always US who are supposed to move more toward THEM and never the other way around. First rule of negotiations, friend. Ask for FAR more than you expect to get.

edited for clarity